W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2014

Re: [whatwg] Supporting more address levels in autocomplete

From: Qebui Nehebkau <qebui.nehebkau+whatwg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:52:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAF_oMa15oCyPj_Dvm34ahoPgYy++q+X9yD=EdAdF0ueWiyA07Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: WHAT Working Group Mailing List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Evan Stade <estade@chromium.org>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> I think the arguments you've presented so far suggest "address-levelN" for
> N=1..4, with 4=region and 3=locality, is probably the simplest thing to
> do. I was hoping there might be other people with opinions, to give us
> different perspectives on this, but it seems nobody else cares. :-(

Since you asked, I think the whole endeavour (of trying to tokenise an
address) is pointless and should be abandoned outright. :)

Short of my ideal of *only* offering the full address (as used on a
label) as an opaque string, I think it would be most reasonable to
consider the 'locality' field itself to be a fully-specified opaque
string, including whatever information is necessary to completely
identify the location from the region level (such as the prefecture
and district), rather than a single level.

Failing all that, I would at least prefer for the fields to have names
instead of abstract numbering, because people are likely to be
confused about the order, no matter which end is the 'widest'. It also
seems more intuitive, to me, for the 'locality', as, after all,
'local', to be the most specific level.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 00:53:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:17 UTC